Laserfiche WebLink
M-2000-016, Lafarge West, Inc.: Riverbend Operation, AM-01 July 25, 2005 <br />Adequacy Memo No. 4 Page 2 <br />adversely impact the floodway in the event of a flood. If data can be provided that <br />indicates the 100-year flood is shallow and low-velocity in these areas, this may be <br />sufficient to allow them to be placed as depicted on the Mine Plan maps. Without <br />these data, these piles must be relocated outside the flood plain. <br />4. As noted in the February 11, 2005 adequacy review as item 6. b), Note 1 on the maps <br />must be removed as the Division cannot approve conceptual or approximate "cell <br />locations and limits." Any changes to a permit must first be approved by the Division <br />through the Technical Revision or Amendment process. <br />5. Regarding Note 5 on the maps, any temporary stockpiles must also be outside the <br />offsets required for slope stability. <br />6. Based upon the applicant's decision to only incorporate discharge of water to the South <br />Platte River in this amendment application, Note 10 is no longer applicable and must be <br />removed from the maps. <br />Note 11 and the note marking the 400'-from-top-of-streambank boundary could be <br />interpreted to mean that only submission of a bank stability plan or analysis to the <br />Division is necessary to mine within this area. Please clarify these statements to indicate <br />that approval of such a plan by the Division is necessary to comply with Stipulation No. 1 <br />of the permit. Additionally, as noted in the April 22, 2005 adequacy review, a flood <br />analysis and flood control plan must be submitted to and approved by the Division prior <br />to mining within 400' of the top of the South Platte riverbank. <br />8. Please be reminded_ that_ the final maps _will require_ qualified signatures per_Rule_ <br />- -- - - - - - <br />6.2.1(2)(b). - <br />9. The maps prepared by the Applegate Group to portray Maximum Disturbance in Zones 1 <br />through 3 and at Reclamation appear to erroneously identify the proposed permit <br />boundary (e.g., the Zone 1 map shows the western Phase 1 boundary incorporating part <br />of the DJR Well Service property). Please revise these maps to correctly define the <br />permit boundaries. Please also remove from the maps the effects from dewatedng of <br />Phase 10, since that has been removed from this application and is now outside the <br />proposed permit boundary. <br />Rule 6.4.4 EXHIBIT D -Mining Plan <br />10. Regarding Items 1, 2,and 3 of the June 24, 2005 "Second Adequacy Review Response," <br />the adequacy response fails to mention the Brighton Ditch. Please confirm that these <br />responses also apply to the Brighton Ditch and that the applicant will only discharge <br />water to the South Platte River (pursuant to their CDPS permit). <br />11. With respect to response 1 (June 24), adding discharge points to waterways other than <br />the South Platte in the future will require a revision to the permit. The Division will <br />determine whether the written submittal is a Technical Revision or an Amendment upon <br />review of the submittal. <br />Rule 6.4.7 EXHIBIT G -Water Information <br />12. Please explain the cause of the triangular cone of depression shown on the Maximum <br />Disturbance maps east of the South Platte River. Is this an accurate representation or a <br />limitation of the hydrologic model? <br />